Matt,
I have always had SELFTUNEBUFPOOLSIZE  no
By the way I run with buffpool 48mb against
28 gb database 70% full.
Experiment with some different settings against same workloads
to see which gives you best results.

cheers,
John




"MC Matt Cooper (2838)" <matt.cooper AT amgreetings DOT com> on 02/17/2003 
02:28:15 PM

Please respond to "ADSM: Dist Stor Manager" <adsm-l AT vm.marist DOT edu>

To:   adsm-l AT vm.marist DOT edu
cc:    (bcc: John Naylor/HAV/SSE)
Subject:  OS390  SELFTUNEBUFPOOLSIZE  yes/no?



Hello all,
        I have been reading the dialog on OS/390 performance tuning.  I too
have found that lowering the size of the address space to 512MB has helped.
I have also seen improvements in my throughput by cycling TSM.  (I just
don't do it as often.)   One thing that I was wondering is if anyone has
done any research on an advantage to NOT USING SELFTUNBUFPOOLSIZE.  Right
now I set BUFPOOLSIZE to 32760 and SELFTUNEBUFPOOLSIZE yes.   From the looks
of things TSM seems to be able to cause some thrashing with MVS memory
management.  SO I wonder if SELFTUNEBUFPOOLSIZE should be set to NO and just
allocate a bigger fixed BUFPOOLSIZE, (like the 128M that was suggested)?
Matt








**********************************************************************
The information in this E-Mail is confidential and may be legally
privileged. It may not represent the views of Scottish and Southern
Energy plc.
It is intended solely for the addressees. Access to this E-Mail by
anyone else is unauthorised. If you are not the intended recipient,
any disclosure, copying, distribution or any action taken or omitted
to be taken in reliance on it, is prohibited and may be unlawful.
Any unauthorised recipient should advise the sender immediately of
the error in transmission.

Scottish Hydro-Electric, Southern Electric, SWALEC and S+S
are trading names of the Scottish and Southern Energy Group.
**********************************************************************